[David Sklansky]

Whether it be regarding religion, poker, investing in stocks, the two point conversion, or a multitude of other fields, I am constantly being attacked for my contention that great knowledge and/or talent in logic/science/probability/math is a much bigger help than most people want to believe. It may not be 50% of the required skills or even 20%. But just as lifting weights does in most sports (only recently acknowledged), math type thinking is often enough to give you the edge over someone whose skills are otherwise slightly superior to yours.

There are three reasons I can think of why so many disagree.

1. The mathematical analysis that could be conducted is not always obvious. But it is almost always there. Who on this forum doubts that I wouldn't be a giant favorite playing nine ball against 98% of those players who have equal mediocre shot making skill to mine? I would recognize that if I had only a 30% chance to make a ball I should probably play safe instead. They might not. Playing tennis against an equally horrible player I would know better than he whether to try for a winner or just get the ball over the net. Two examples of numerous endeavors have a much greater mathematical component to them than the average person realizes.

2. There is a strong psychological need to believe I am wrong among those who are either too lazy or untalented to learn the stuff that needs to be learned in order to apply it to these endeavors.

3. The very very best in math/logic etc. do not seem to show excellence for the most part in other fields.

Until now I have felt the need to deal with #3 by arguing that these math geniuses usually don't excel in other fields only because they have little desire to. There are obvious autistic savant types where this isn't true. But I've always contended that Richard Feynman types could be good at almost anything.

But I want now to abandon that stance. Because it is not clear cut. And the quirkiness that so many math geniuses exhibit gives people the excuse to disbelieve my overall contention.

This gives me the freedom to say to you. "Fine. Obsessing over math type thinking may have a downside. But what about those who are a notch below these people? Guys who took two year of calculus two years of physics, one year of statistics, and aced all of them. And then went on to major in economics, law, business, or medicine. You don't think they have a big edge over the rest of you? You think their people skills are diminished because they know how to do differential equations, figure out poker odds, and still subscribe to Scientific American? If you do I have no sympathy for you when they beat you at whatever you are doing.